NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

PETRONA DE LOS ANGELES 

BARRIENTOS, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney 

General, 

Respondent.

No. 15-70544 

Agency No. A070-664-909 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted April 11, 2018**

Before: SILVERMAN, PAEZ, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

Petrona De Los Angeles Barrientos, a native and citizen of El Salvador, 

petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order 

dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying asylum, 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

APR 16 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 15-70544 

withholding of removal, Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) relief, and special 

rule cancellation of removal under the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central 

American Relief Act (“NACARA”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1252. We review de novo questions of law and for substantial evidence the 

agency’s factual findings. Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010).

We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The agency correctly determined that Barrientos’ conviction under 

California Health and Safety Code § 11351, for possession for sale of cocaine, is a 

drug trafficking aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(B), rendering her 

ineligible for asylum and NACARA cancellation. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(2)(A)(ii), 

(B)(i); 8 C.F.R. § 1240.61(b); see Cabantac v. Holder, 736 F.3d 787, 790 (9th Cir. 

2013) (where “the abstract of judgment or minute order specifies that a defendant 

pleaded guilty to a particular count of the criminal complaint or indictment, we can 

consider the facts alleged in that count” (internal quotation marks and citation 

omitted)); United States v. Murillo-Alvarado, 876 F.3d 1022, 1027-28 (9th Cir. 

2017) (Section 11351 is divisible as to its controlled substance requirement). The 

criminal complaint, change of plea transcript, and change of plea minute order, 

read in conjunction, establishes that the substance at issue was cocaine.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that Barrientos failed to 

establish she would be persecuted on account of a protected ground. See Zetino, 
3 15-70544 

622 F.3d at 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (applicant’s “desire to be free from harassment by 

criminals motivated by theft or random violence by gang members bears no nexus 

to a protected ground”). Thus, in the absence of a nexus to a protected ground, 

petitioner’s withholding of removal claim fails. See id. Because this determination 

is dispositive as to Barrientos’ eligibility for withholding of removal, we do not 

reach her contentions regarding changed country conditions. Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 

371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004).

Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief because 

Barrientos failed to show it is more likely than not that she would be tortured by 

the government of El Salvador, or with its consent or acquiescence. See GarciaMilian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1034-35 (9th Cir. 2014).

Because the BIA conducted a de novo review of the IJ’s findings, we do not 

consider Barrientos’ challenges to alleged errors in the IJ’s decision. See RomeroRuiz v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 1057, 1061 (9th Cir. 2008).

We lack jurisdiction to consider Barrientos’ unexhausted contentions

regarding a family based social group. See Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 

(9th Cir. 2010).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.